Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Dr. Adequate wrote; I think it is premature to state that creationism is just a religious dogma.I don't see how you can state that w/certainty when the Origin of life is not known.
For instance if the origin of life was not random then you may have Creation.My question to you is can you state with certainity that Creation is not plausible at this time in our existence?

jar writes; Wow. I guess I have heard it from the top of the mountain. Pray tell what is this very, very, very high degree of confidence that Creation is not feasible based upon?Is that based upon your scientific studies? Give me the cites.And what is your definition of "Special Creation"?Should we teach the children that there is no plausible explanation of how life began, but .... but what. Give me the scientific theory, not speculation as to how life began.And how does it make God look like a fool?
You must be absoultely sure as to how life began correct? Tell me how and I will rest in peace.

NoNukes writes; There are other intrepretations of Genesis other than the "fundamentalist" as you say.Can you honestly state w/o knowing the origin of life that there could be no creation event?Is there a scientific accepted theory of the beginning of life? What is the scientific dogma on the creation of life?I guess religious dogma is whatever you perceive. Have you read the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution and creation? What do you mean by that statement? It is completely incomprehensible.

Rahvin writes; You miss the point of my reply to Dr. Adequate. He infers that religious dogma has to be untrue. How does he know this? If he cannot scientifically explain the origin of life, on what does he base this disregard of religious dogma?Rahvin writes;
; Do you intrepert Dr. Adequate as meaning that religious dogma may be correct?
That is my point, he completely rules it out, and I don't think he is able to do that w/o an exlanation of how life began.Rahvin writes; That is really not a valid point. Would you agree that Creation is one of the most accepted possibilities for the universe and life?
I believe educators are able to select the most possible and probable reasons for life and teach them in a responsible manner.
The last I heard Science was not claiming it is incapble of error.

Theodoric writes; I was commenting that Dr. Adequate was stating that it was a religious dogma and therefore could not be true. I was not denying it is a religious dogma.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granny Magda writes; I personally agree with your statements above. I am of the opinon that evolution is a very well documented scientific theory. I don't agree with the scientific intrepretation of it's cause, because I belive in creation., and do believe creation in some manner has occurred.I am of the opinion that the 21st century theory of Natural Genetic Engineering of James A. Shapiro, even though he is a naturalist, leads to the possibility of intelligence in the cells that could not have come from random mutations in re to fitness.But I don't agree with Dr. Adequate that religious dogma is false and not to be considered.In the class room evolution and creation can be discussed by intelligent instructors.

taq writes; I am not saying creation is not a religious dogma. I disagree with Dr. Adequate who, I belive, is saying it is religious dogma and therefore is not true.Taq writes; Once again, unless science can prove the origin of life, how can you rule out either one?Taq writes; Nor is there scientific evidence to suggest it is incorrect. The instructors should be well qualified and prepared to present both sides of the issue.
Until there is absolute proof of the origin of life I do not belive it is proper to leave Creation out of the classroom.

Coyote writes; Perhaps the instructor could tell them that science has no scientifically agreeed theory of the orgin of life, and the Bible does give a presentation of creation as the origin of life.To this day we cannot say with certainity whether either or both are correct. That will be for you to read about and decide. After all they are students.

NoNukes posts; I am not saying the Roman Catholic teaching is not religious dogma. I was questioning Dr.
Adequate as to his reference to "just religious dogma" as meaning that religious dogma could never be true.
If creation is the origin of life then Dr. Adequate is wrong, as I interpreted his statementThat's all I meant. I have mixed feelings as to whether this should be taught in a Science class, but do object to telling the students that Creation must be naturally caused.
There is no proof of that, as their is no empirical proof of Creation as the origin of life except for the Scriptures, and as for myself, Roman Catholic theology.

subbie writes; That is a policy I could live with in the schools. I just do not agree that there should be a negative response to Creation. For example to teach the students that the origin of life must be from natural causes, would be a derogation of religious teaching.

jar writes; I think your statement is too dogmatic.Science teaches dogma doesn't it? For example Crick's "central dogma of molecular biology."

Granny Magda writes; I have no problem with that policy except for the "myth" interpretation.

Shadow 71 wrote; NoNukes posts; NoNukes further writes; I don't know what your trying to say in this post. You have taken my comments completely out of context.I never stated that I wanted evolution from being taught. I have stated on many occasions on this forum that I have no problem with evolution, just with the assumption that "random mutation for fitness" and "natural" selection are proven entities.Science cannot prove those 2 points, they are inferred by scientists, not proven. You cannot show by experiement "natural selection". You cannot show "random mutation for fitness" but merely extrapolate it from findings.I really don't care what you think what you speculate I object to.
Don't put words into my mouth. I know what I am saying.

No Nukes writes; I am basing my position on "natural" selection, and "random" mutation both on my view of creation and James A. Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engilneering papers on 21st centrury evolution that ,in my opinion, provide evidence that both selection and mutation for fitness may not be completely natural and random.These issues were discussed in the now closed thread Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution.NoNukes also writes; I am completely in agreement with the Catholic's Church"s teaching on biological evolution, which accepts evolution as part of creation and "special creation" in re Man's soul.Telll me where I am wrong.

taq writes; My problem is that it appears that scientists preach the naturalist message that all is knowable by science. Perhaps to temper that hubris, the students should be told that perhaps science may not have all the answers and for more than 10,000 years religious teachings based on revelations in the Bible teach that maybe science will find answers to many questions, but not all.
I just don't like the arrorgance of "Science will deliver the answer or its not there."
I avoided this issue by sending my children to Catholic schools where they recieived execellent educations and were not reduced to robotic christian fundamentalists as many posts by scientists on this board propose may happen if we happen to mention that perhaps science does not have all the answers.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : spelling & punctuation